Re: [DotGNU]System.Xml

[Rhys Weatherley]

Simon Guindon wrote:
> 
> Why not just develop a .NET compliant System.Xml and then let the world use
> it and decide from there if the other 2 options are required.  It just seems
> to me doing 3 or even 2 is a little over kill.

I was under the impression that Mono was striving for a .NET
compliant System.Xml (option 2).  Is that correct?

> How much does MS's implementation vary from the ECMA standard?

ECMA has about 20 classes defined.  MS has hundreds.  ECMA has
enough to read and write simple documents and process them, but
none of the schema/path/etc stuff.

ECMA compatibility is still useful for us, even if it is limited.
Embedded environments need a stripped-down set of classes, and
since the ECMA set is standardised, it is a good place to start.

Cheers,

Rhys.